Sunday, February 06, 2011

“Writing propaganda for the EDL”

It is axiomatic that the moment you write about the importance of promoting a concept of ‘Britishness’ – its values, history, culture, tradition, religion, people – someone, somewhere pops up and accuses you of being a (closet) member of the BNP.

It is as crass, unintelligent and tedious as defending the Anglican Settlement and being called a ‘bigot’ for doing so; invariably by those who are themselves more than a little predisposed to manifestations of intolerance or ‘bigotry’ towards any who do not share their particular interpretation of an article of faith.

If you wave the Union Flag or the Cross of St George, admire Churchill, oppose further mass immigration, express concerns about multiculturalism, favour withdrawal from the EU, seek to uphold the traditional nuclear family and talk about the primacy of Christianity, you are now indelibly of the ‘extreme right’.

Of course, these used to be core Conservative themes (except, perhaps, the Cross of St George). But David Cameron’s Munich speech is insightful in its contribution to the continuing demonisation of ‘the right’. The conversation thread which followed yesterday’s post yielded some excellent analysis by His Grace’s communicants (who constitute a much-valued collective wisdom):

The Prime Minister did not use the word ‘left’ in isolation or the phrase ‘left-wing’ at all. He did not associate the ‘Red Army Faction’ with any mention of ‘left-wing terrorism’, or the anarchist movements in Italy or Greece with left-wing radicals, which they are. He used the word ‘liberal(ism)’ twice, and the phrases ‘muscular liberalism’ and ‘genuinely liberal’ – both relatively positive usages.

But his use of the word ‘right’ was unremittingly negative: he talked of a ‘right-wing fascist party’; ‘right-wing extremists’; ‘far right groups’ and ‘the hard right’. The subliminal is inescapable: right-wing politics and right-wing philosophy are malignant: the ‘heir to Blair’ continues the Blairite mission to wipe out ‘the forces of Conservatism’.

But at least Tony Blair mentioned ‘Conservatism’: David Cameron has completely expunged the word from his narrative: just like the last Party conference, it made no appearance in his speech at all, as though it had nothing positive to say on the issue of state-enforced multiculturalism and social engineering.

And so we are left with the BBC narrative: ‘left’ and ‘liberal’ are good; ‘right’ is evil.

Interestingly, in the only place where David Cameron did mention the left it is qualified with a mitigating adjective: "On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction (between Islam and extremist ideology).”

So this is not a blindness of the ‘left’, but the ‘soft left’.

There is a very interesting word psychology going on here, implanting in the consciousness an unquestionable state orthodoxy and narrative of enlightenment. It is ‘spin’, but of such an Orwellian subliminal manipulation of the vernacular that any contrary utterance strikes a chord of jarring dissonance, and the speaker or writer is cast into political, social or spiritual oblivion.

These are inter alia ‘fascists’ of ‘the right’; they exist at the periphery of social acceptability, while the fascistic tendencies of the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) are completely ignored. Yet it is the UAF who seek to intimidate and bully any protest against their favoured Marxist multiculturalism.

And Sadiq Khan, who accused the Prime Minister of ‘writing propaganda for the EDL’, is not himself averse to a little racial bullying and religious intimidation. For it was he who said that Sayeeda Warsi had only been elevated by David Cameron ‘because of her religion’.

Might it not be said of this assertion that Mr Khan was writing propaganda for the BNP?

Or is it unthinkable to allege such, because he is of the left, brown-skinned and Muslim? And any appropriation of inappropriate motive becomes a de facto racist pursuit, constituting evidence that even His Grace has BNP/EDL sympathies?

The Prime Minister is right to point out that ‘hands off tolerance’ has failed.

Ergo we should no longer tolerate the intolerant or the intolerable.

But that includes those who will not tolerate freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of belief.

And if it is ‘fascist’ or ‘extremist’ or ‘right-wing’ to say this, then it would appear that the vast majority of 'muscular liberal' Britons are proud to be so, for there beats the liberal conservative heart of the nation.

92 Comments:

I must admit to a little delight at the term 'muscular liberal' - means absolutely nothing but sends out a message of assertiveness in support of freedoms.

Frankly we speak to much of "cultures" - it has become lazy groupthink rather than any real understanding of what it means to be a sunni muslim born in Britain as the child of immigrants from a village near Mirpur in Kashmir (by way of example). In that single description there are so many influences upon 'culture' that we can't give it value by saying 'Muslim' or 'Pakistani'.

Dictionary definition for Oblige: To compel by law, contract, custom or necessity.

Maxim: Necessity overrules the law. Maxim: Necessity makes that lawful which otherwise is not lawful.

Survival is a necessity.

"God created the law of free will, and God created the law of cause and effect. And he himself will not violate the law. We need to be thinking less in terms of what God did and more in terms of whether or not we are following those laws"Marianne Williamson

I wonder if Cameron employs Blair's speechwriter ? It is Deja-Vu all over again as Yogi Berra would have said.

One of the tiresome features of politics is the reciting pf platitudes following by the carping of soundbite swordplay. It suggests a debate rather than a staged performance.

Khan sees his job as to push his communal interest in every way. To ride every issue for publicity. It is exactly how Indian politics developed with the Muslim League, It is the constant push and jostle for sweeteners and currency to buy communal influence.

This country has played its old game of currying favour with local nabobs. Keith Vaz has a power base built on this as does Lord Patel in Blackburn or Lord Ahmed.

It is problematic when the baksheesh runs out because then the majority get tired of the political class and turn away.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome"

The Big Man had it sussed over 100 years ago when he wrote the above in his book The River Wars in 1899 - this should have been essential reading for all school aged children and we would not have had the the problem with so called 'multiculturalism' in the first place.

English Defence League...there I said it. Not EDL, English Defence League. Why is everyone scared to write it. They're quite happy to the UAF is 'unite against fascism' yet here and most of the press seem to not want to name the group...a group that isn't racist, isn't violent, isn't political and is quite clear about it's single stated aim.

It's not that I particularly disagree with the thrust of the article but whenever I hear people talk about 'Britishness' in this sort of context I hear alarm bells.

I can never get anyone to actually define it in a meaningful way. We sort of know what it means intuitively but to use it as the basis for anything, it needs to be something more than that. It really needs a philosophical going over.

In the past, people have waved an airy hand at our literary heritage, or the influence our political and legal system has had on the world, or our sense of fair play whilst laughing at our tendency to queue. But it's not enough is it?

I get alarm bells because I think we're supposed to feel that we're not 'British' any more as something about what we are now is problematic. It's like 'Britishness' is best defined in terms of stuff we're not.

What we are now is not what we were in (say) 1900 and would we actually want to go back to that? A class-ridden society? No gender equality? Children to be seen and not heard? The lower classes in very poor health? Rigid social restrictions and no social mobility? Colonialism?

Perhaps it's just me but I hear 'Britishness' as somehow meaning 'The Good Old Days' and, well, they weren't that good as far as I can tell. We should try to work out what being British actually means and get the majority to agree to it before trying to promote it.

Your Grace believes that multiculturalism is Marxist. It is rather a creation of pragmatic politicians in the light of the disinclination of most voters of all backgrounds to engage their neighbours in conflict.

Also, multiculturalism has been a patch-up job by those with conservative inclinations in a multiracial society of people brought up according to different religious orthodoxies, each of which evolved to support a status quo. In these conditions doubt flourishes, so faith as a whole is defended by asserting that all religions say the same thing really. To maintain that, it also comes to be held they are of equal validity. This has become a quasi-religious dogma in itself, and those opposed to it are seen as extremists, yet they are closer to each of their founders and early martyrs, who were struggling for a distinct true faith.

You're starting to sound like a socialist now. Is it so difficult to understand the fact that we have our own culture, which is considerably better than that which others have been trying to foist upon us? We want it re-established.

Not sure if this helps but I'm actually a liberal (that tradition spans parties), I've never voted Labour in my life, and I voted Conservative at the last election. I loathe New Labour actually.

You say we have our own culture but I'm questioning if that's actually true. I was born in England but I see myself as British rather than English. Then European. What is an English culture? I have trouble identifying it.

I've lived and worked in other countries, and I'm very well travelled, having trekked in lots of inhospitable places. I'm pleased to go away but I'm always pleased to come home, that's for sure.

I think we have a great culture or set of cultures here. Is that just because I'm a product of them? I don't know for sure but I do think our culture is better than a lot of other cultures, and in particular cultures in most Muslim countries.

Of course, if I wanted to preserve a single culture in the UK then I wouldn't start from here, as the saying goes. We're multi-cultural and the culture I most identify with is heterogeneous in itself.

It seems to me that we humans are predisposed, when we gather new ideas, to want to justify them by sharing them and convincing others about them in order to make us feel good and secure, and that we are on the correct road ourselves. Safety in numbers so to speak.

I declared myself an Agnostic on my Twitter feed this morning and lost 10 followers within minutes. It occurred to me that my own position on matters of religion and philosophy are not that high up on other people's diaries of importance. It's great that people have coping methods that aid them in what can only be termed as the struggle of life, but we should learn to accept that we are all different, and we should resist the urge to try and convert others to our methods of coping.

There does come a point though when we must, as a collective of civilised and advanced people, seriously consider the nature of what some people and their belief systems are trying to franchise as acceptable ideas in our advanced and civilised society. We then have a valid and crucial obligation to apply what has come to be accepted democratic opinion about censorship, thus removing the potential for the brutality and gross inhumanity that history has shown us to be more than capable of.

As much as it pains me to admit this, and it does pain me for reasons of conscience, but I seem to be subscribing to more and more conservative values as I get older and wiser in years. I am getting to appreciate the flavour of conservatism which seems to departing from its previous elitist branches, and seems to be recognising the importance of shared prosperity while retaining a sense of meritocracy and fairness. This can only be a commendable thing and a valuable asset for our previously undernourished and single-minded political landscape.

Multiculturalism is really a method used to dilute one's culture. One has to protect one's culture or else it will cease to be one's culture. England and Europe have to address the influx of non Europeans who , in many cases, do not want to assimilate. And in other instances detest the host countries way of life and values.

Liberals, who tend to be the great and the good believe that that what the people want is freedom from oppression and coercion... Do they though? A lot of people are nostalgic about the good old days in Russia and East Germany. There was structure. There was certainty. Who cares if a few dissident freedom lovers were shot. The greatest flowering of poetry in Russia was under the yoke of Lenin and Stalin.

Tell the poor and the peasants in post 1789 France that they now live in a wonderful new world order without the all powerful clergy and aristocrats. Actually, before the revolution bread was subsidised. And M Antoinette never said... Let them eat cake. (Qu'ils mangent de la brioche) Anyhow, brioche is a form of egg based bread and quite expensive but there were laws in pre-revolutionary France which expressly forbade bakers and pastry makers selling the fancy breads at a price dearer than the cheap variety.

I digress... Liberalism means the autonomy of the individual which is quite opposite to all Socialist, statist thinking. But give the people this autonomy and they yearn for Big Brother.

Liberals, who tend to be the great and the good believe that that what the people want is freedom from oppression and coercion... Do they though? A lot of people are nostalgic about the good old days in Russia and East Germany. There was structure. There was certainty. Who cares if a few dissident freedom lovers were shot. The greatest flowering of poetry in Russia was under the yoke of Lenin and Stalin.

As YG clearly said, what used to be conservative values are now seen as 'extreme' and so is it any wonder that people such as I, certainly not that highly educated, start to sympathise more and more with the likes of the EDL. This is because nobody else will publicly represent our views in the political sphere.

"Liberalism means the autonomy of the individual which is quite opposite to all Socialist, statist thinking. But give the people this autonomy and they yearn for Big Brother"

Well said, but you can reverse it also using East Germany and Russia as examples: "give the people Big Brother and they yearn for individual freedom".

Basically we need the group and the individual.

The problem is balancing.

The stronger the group, the weaker is the individual.

The stronger the individual, the weaker is the group.

Or, to put it another way, the stronger and more self reliant the individual, the smaller is the government required.

A totalitarian government of any sort demands weak individuals. Therefore a strong individual must be made weak or removed from the group. A person with a religious outlook tends to be less malleable as he or she believes in a higher power rather than the word/spin of the government.This cannot tolerated as the "Totalitarian State" could not then dictate total subservience (for your own good, of course), which is neccessary for its own survival.

Most of the various forms of Christianity combine the double effect of individual freedom and group resonsibility.

With regards the English Defence League in Luton yesterday, even the Guardian Journo Matthew Taylor tweeted: "Best organised and biggest #edl demo I’ve seen in luton today. Feels like a movement on the rise."

A movement on the rise. And more and more of the general public are seeing the UAF (Unite Against Freedom? lol) for the violent suppressors of free speech and dialogue that they are. A lot of people on the left bandy around the words 'fascist' and 'nazi' without really seeming to understand what the words actually mean. They make me angry. The woman councillor for Luton interviewed about the EDL march by the BBC said “We don’t want these people coming to our town, but unfortunately, we have democracy, and that gives them the right to do so”. "Unfortunately" we have democracy??? Pretty much shows where she is coming from then.

Perhaps we ought to start singing slogans such as "We're all right-wing extremists now!" lol.

@ LeucipottomySpoon82 (18:16)—Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, currently on trial in Austria for incitement to hatred and denigrating religious beliefs, spoke at yesterday’s EDL rally and has written an account of the experience.

Time will tell. If we’re lucky, the history books will record it as a seminal event in the peaceful de-Islamization of Britain. If we’re unlucky, Cameron will ban the EDL and Britain will be de-Islamized by force.

DanJo @ 18:53 - ultimately the ''de-Islamization'' of Britain will be a balance of time against necessity ... the longer the time, the more necessary; and thus all the more radical. The longer it takes, the less middle ground there will be. The fulcrum point will be some measure (?) of repatriation.

I fear that there is no other way; they have tipped their scales once too often, and it is up to us to readjust the balance.

@ Dan (19:21)—On another of His Grace’s august threads, you quoted the projected Muslim population figures from Pew. The British Muslim population will grow by 78% in the next 20 years. That is worrying enough but the indigenous population is decreasing year by year.

The simple fact is that, if nothing is done, Britain will become Muslim. There is no argument about that. I favour stopping Britain becoming Muslim, and that means paying Muslims to leave. It all seems logical enough to me.

I happen to think that subliminal is the new political battleground, and the BBC has already started the NooLabour fightback using subliminal conditioning of Middle England. My suspicions were first awoken when Brian Cowen the Taoiseach stepped down, and the BBC reported with completely unfounded hyperbole that Ireland was "in chaos". Then, the other day, after the Today programme interviewed Nick Clegg, ToeNails came onto "analyse" what Clegg had said and in a fat drooling voice diagnosed "anxiety in the Government" (and Clegg had no opportunity to correct or amend what ToeNails had said).

The Archers has become unrelievedly dreary, too, so it is possible that the soap is being used, too, to inculcate in Middle England the sense that they are living in Eastern Europe about 30 years ago.

Expect to hear the clergy doing it, too: I read somewhere that NooLabour intends to use the C of E to lead the fightback to power. So when you hear the gospel of despair and dissention preached from the pulpit and on Thought For the Day, instead of hope and love ...

I think what they mean is that as Islam is a belief system, to make it as uncomfortable as possible for Islam to be practised here. In the same way we wouldn't want to tolerate any other totalitarian ideology that sought to impose itself upon us. It's one thing for me to believe something whilst in the privacy of my own home, and provided I am not breaking the law/harming others in the process. It's quite another to go banging on someone's front door and forcing them to believe and behave the same way. This is why I tend to shut the door on Jehovah's Witness', with their drivel, and why I got so angry when Mormons got on the bus and promptly started trying to convert all the passengers whilst the bus was between bus stops. This isn't about race really is it? Although some do seem to think it is and I can't quite understand why.

Johnny: "The simple fact is that, if nothing is done, Britain will become Muslim. There is no argument about that."

Is that actually true? It looks like it contains lots of assumptions to me.

One assumption us that the indigenous birth rate will not recover due to social changes. Another is that the Pakistani birth rate will not drop like the indigenous one did and perhaps for the same reasons if we address some of the social problems in that area.

In Leicester and surrounding areas, it is very obvious that Pakistani youths have adopted British habits contrary to Islam. What's to say that there will not be significant assimilation further down the line, especially if we have a policy of (say) preventing immigration through marriage somehow.

Another issue is that we're running out of resources such as houses, and that our economy may not support a first world lifestyle for much longer. Is it not possible that population growth will become self-limiting?

I'm dead against the idea of faith schools. What's to stop the state mandating attendence at state schools where religion is not promoted and the catchment is deliberately multi-ethnic to encourage shared values?

The talk is about "left" & "right". But just, pray, where does the dividing line stand?It is my contention that after 3 generations of socialism the line has been moved leftwards, so that now, even if someone is said to be "centre" he/she is actually far left.We need, not just several Tory election wins in succession, but the time bought during those periods of "right wing" government to drag the line back towards it's true position, that is the true political centre. Peter Melia

"I'm dead against the idea of faith schools. What's to stop the state mandating attendence at state schools where religion is not promoted and the catchment is deliberately multi-ethnic to encourage shared values?"

In the old days, I mean when schools used to actually teach subjects like Maths, English etc. and you were also expected to learn, we had shared values.

I was fortunate enough to go to a good English RC grammar school where we leant the same subjects and values as our mates at the next school.We read the same books and were taught the same history.

I lived on a council estate which was not multicultural although it had many nationalities and as many diferent religions.

You see, we were all Brits.

We all respected what Britain stood for including all the past wrong that had been done it's name.

Britain was, at that time, truely a leading light. Freedom was not just an empty word.

The trouble is that many people came and are coming to Britain expecting it to change to their own perspective of society.

To be a Brit, you first have to want to be a Brit. If you don't want that, then leave.

Faith schools are not the problem, social engineering is the problem.

Pakistani youths who have adopted British habits are not the problem unless they are swayed by those who have no intention of adopting British ways.

With the shift of politics to the socialist left by all three major political parties we have experienced the undermining of traditional British values and this is the problem.

I was fortunate enough to go to a good English RC grammar school where we leant the same subjects and values as our mates at the next school.We read the same books and were taught the same history.' Me too, here here!

'To be a Brit, you first have to want to be a Brit. If you don't want that, then leave.' I'll buy the ticket for them too!

I'm dead against the idea of faith schools. What's to stop the state mandating attendence at state schools where religion is not promoted and the catchment is deliberately multi-ethnic to encourage shared values?.

I would like to see religious assembly halted with immediate effect and all puplis to stand in front of a large poster of Richard Dawkins and remember where we would be without brave individuals like him, Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin and other secularists who knew something about how to educate our children!

You have my vote Mr DanJo, as I went to a faith school and "It was hell in there".

"To be a Brit, you first have to want to be a Brit. If you don't want that, then leave."

What if I want to be a Brit but I don't share the values of some of my fellow Brits? This is the problem I see. Which values are necessary and sufficient for being considered British?

This is not just about Islam. It's also about social-conservatism vs libertarianism vs liberalism vs communitarianism vs socialism. Christianity vs agnostism vs atheism, too. And so on.

Throughout the 20th century, we had huge social changes. There's no way the people at the front of the trades union movement had the similar values as the establishment figures of the time. Yet they're all part of our shared British history now.

So, who owns our culture and who owns Britain? Surely it's the people who were born here and who are stakeholders here? And that's a very diverse crowd now.

So, who owns our culture and who owns Britain?(The sassanacks and their continental dandies, thats who. Surely it's the people who were born here and who are stakeholders here? (Aye, all the celts and druids before ye lot of liberal girl blouses came from over the channel and wasted our heritage). And that's a very diverse crowd now. ( Gan upta tha other side of the wall and yall see. Gan back ta where ya came frum).

Statisticians analyse the birth rate trends of the indigenous British and Pakistani British over the past decades and make forecasts. No assumptions.

On the other hand, your assumptions include the indigenous birth rate recovering (§3) and becoming self-limiting (§5), and that Pakistani youths may assimilate (§4). Pakistanis have been here for 60 years; when is the assimilation going to start?

As for running out of houses (§5), it’s more that we’re accumulating too many people. A sustainable population for Britain is around 30 million. Going by the quantity of food bought, the quantity of sewage produced and the amount of electricity used, our present population is thought to be between 77 and 80 million. Yet another reason for paying the fast breeders to leave.

Johnny, I've just pointed out that there are all sorts of unstated assumptions in your assertion. I've not made assumptions myself there, I've merely asked rhetorical questions as examples. Predicting birth rates must surely include assumptions since they go on into the future and we have little idea what the future holds.

The puppet masters of the E U have set about destroying the National Identities and the Sovereignty of the member States of the E U.And they have been doing quite a good job of it!.The idea is to bring these Countries to their knees so that they can be reformed in the image of their masters in the EU .Of course this will be done in the name of 'Human Rights'freedom of the individual,multiculturalism, freedom of expression etc. The constant attacking of our Christian Heritage,the undermining of the moral fabric of our Society, in fact anything which will break down a Society is all being allowed without restraint. . All flown under the banner of Political Correctness of course.Which is merely to 'gag' any opposition.

For those who see through the intentions of those behind the E U there will be much 'finger pointing' and the labelling of them of being bigots,judgemental,narrow minded ,fascists,and so on.

This is the WHOLE purpose behind the allowance of mass immigration, gay rights,the pressures imposed on families and all the above.The People are being herded like sheep into the E U fold and by the time the door slams shut it will be too late to do anything.(Probably too late already!.)

It appears that to hope that any political party who asks for us to vote for them can allow the british people to say they are proud to be british or cherish our heritage or culture means all you are is a right wing bigot.

Labour propagated this double speak against the ordinary citizen, nuturing an insinuation against our basic tenet of free speech and thought if we stray outside what THEY allow us to think or speak.

It appears that the only choice is UKIP or BNP as the others have all morphed into one.

Looks like 'Common Purpose' is here to stay, irrespective of who gets into power. :(

It’s all very worthy… ‘Recognising that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every human being; Concerned, however, by the risk of misuse or abuse of such computer systems to disseminate racist and xenophobic propaganda; Mindful of the need to ensure a proper balance between freedom of expression and an effective fight against acts of a racist and xenophobic nature’ …but it’s just another excuse to control us.

English patriotism and hence identity was once a very simple thing. It was also a cornerstone of our conservatism which is why the left of today ( virtually all the current political class) has so consistently sought to degrade and demonise it. I came across this today written by a convalescing WW1 soldier:'It was raining. I looked down the churchyard of Twyford to the river. and across the fields. and I thought of the energies that had gone into that soil to make it a garden, and of the blood that had been spent to keep it so. I was English, grown like the corn, like the grass,like the yew under which I sat. England came to me then, and I have held fast to her ever since, in a world where so much is so very uncertain'Twyford is in the valley of the Itchen in our south country. Close, as I am sure Your Grace knows, to Winchester.

Owl @ 23.17, I think Dave may be referring to the use of social media (Facebook, Twitter) to organise demonstrations at short notice by groups that have already been prepped by their leadership.

The Egyptian protesters are making extensive use of these techniques.

An academic at Georgetown University, Guarav Mishra, has developed a model that defines four Cs in the use of social media: Content, Community, Collaboration and Collective Intelligence.

Imagine news of an EDL march (Content) being relayed to an existing Community, who agree to meet and counter-march (Collaboration) and by use of Collective Inteligence at the site, can either arrange for reinforcements or re-deploy if required.

I suspect this is what Dave means when talking about Counter-Proliferation.

The below may at first appear to be OFF-TOPIC, however it is extremely ON-TOPIC.

I have an answer to almost all of your problems, but many of you are not going to like it, one tiny little bit. Undoubtedly still fewer will act on my advice.

To be, as well as live like a true conservative is must easier to do then you may think.

The thing to do is to start living your own lives the way YOU personally wish to live them, given the practical restraints that all generations have had to live under.

The most important step towards doing so is to start to understand that as a general rule you are do not currently posses a free mind worth the name. That your entire consciousness to a sometimes lesser, and often to the very much greater extent, been systematically manipulated since the day your were born.

Even the greatest journeys start with just one simple step.

You must finally understand, as well as come to terms with the FACT, that your entire main stream media, and educational institutions are your free minds worse possible enemy. That The Conservative Party is not a conservative party. The Labour Party positively despises anyone who actually does any real labour. The LIB/DEMS are not a liberal, or indeed a democratic party.

Either destroy your TV, and Radio sets, or give them to someone you hate with a passion.

Stop buying news-papers.

If you are unfortunate enough to come by free copy, please use it to wipe your back-side with, DON'T whatever you do, actually read any of it. If you do, then only trust the date on the top of the front page, and then only after reference to a reliable calender.

Understand that ALL political parties, or institutions, as well as all agents of the MSM work exclusively for the EXACT same people, none of which are YOU, your family or anyone you are at all likely to know, or associate with.

Then, and ONLY then can you start your long road to recovery, and begin living like a true conservative, if that is what you really want to do.

Our Fabian FASCIST ESTABLISHMENT certainly wants to radically change you, and your society for the worse, but they can only change it as much, and as quickly as YOU personally allow them to.

Set yourself FREE first, and hopefully the rest will follow. If not, then that is their particular problem, not yours.

On a day when on the BBC Big Question show, to ask questions about that Religion of Peace is tantamount to bigotry as Peter Hitchens found out, we discover a christian convert from Islam (A Red Cross volunteer, Mr Musa, who lost his left leg in a landmine explosion in the 1990s) is due to be hanged within days for simply believing in Christ not Mohammed.

Where are the "moderate voices" condemning this then? ( I cannot hear Baroness Warsi or Saddiq Khan )Yet to think - all those frequent complaints about "Islamophobia" in this country when all people are basically free to practice their religion in a way this poor man can never do. I think people here are quick to forget things like this and that it's actually "ILLEGAL" to even be a Christian in some countries, let alone convert.

They wonder WHY the BNP has a voice that grows daily as people in our country feel helpless and ignored about genuine concerns as to where it will all end!

The British Government has a duty to act to make sure that this man is rescued and allowed to move to Britain where he can be safe and he has a much more genuine reason to be here than others who arrive claiming asylum. cheating the system.

HE HELPS OTHERS, FOR GOODNESS SAKE, CAN WE NOT HELP HIM. It's just common decency!

Aren't British troops supposed to be fighting and dying for 'freedom and democracy' in Afghanistan?

If not, then bring our boys and girls home or else what are they giving their lives for in that barbaric country.

Do we really want this type of 'tolerance' and 'freedom' in the UK that Islamists claim is in their countries?

Let us contrast Cameron's oh-so-polite equivocations with the muscular prose of Ronald Reagan, born this day 100 years ago.

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moments here. We did all that could be done." (October 27, 1964)

As a liberal, I've had concerns about the laws passed regarding the use of technology and the internet during New Labour's tenure. I'm mostly with Henry Porter on this sort of stuff.

Clearly the security services get a great deal of information from communications media in their fight against terrorism and the like. This seems like a Good Thing when used to tackle criminals, but a Bad Thing when used against the people generally.

It's inevitable that our laws try to keep up with the rapidly evolving technology and anticipates where it can. That Council of Europe [1] thing is an inter-governmental approach to the potential for cyber-crime. And it predates twitter and facebook and the like by some years.

This should be an interesting area in future. It's in all our interests that society is stable when the State is largely benign. But not when the State is oppressive. Rapid, collaborative communication technology must be a concern for both benign and oppressive States because it allows people of all sorts of agendas to organise.

I wonder how pleased His Grace is with being a rallying point like this? He complains that asserting reasonable social or cultural conservatism and standing up for one's country results in his being lumped in with the more negative portrayals of the EDL and the BNP, only to find when he turns around that some of the EDL and the BNP (or at least proponents of some of its more radical policies like repatriation of British citizens elsewhere) have adopted him as their leader. Perhaps I have misunderstood it all but it's made me chuckle nonetheless. :)

Let's face it, Your Grace, iDave is unfit for purpose. Even as his lips drip fat porkies about protecting our sovereignty he's selling us out to the EUSSR as fast as he can. They used to hang people for that.

Our politics and politicians have gone bad on us in the worst possible way. Voting for any of the three main parties in the hope that things will change is akin to being a turkey voting for Christmas happening every day of the year. If politicians won't change their "politics" then we must change ours. Stop voting for the lying scumbags.

LeucipottomySpoon82: "He simply allows people to discuss these things if they want to without fear or favour."

Quite right, too.

My first question was about that specific policy or means of redress, which is independent of the organisations that also support it. My second was more rhetorical really and mostly for my own amusement as that is the sort of thing I think David Cameron quite rightly worries about.

However, there's also a serious point to be made. Those organisations, and perhaps the wider group who have a disconnected sympathy with their rhetoric now, really need an articulate and reasonable person to front the arguments.

I think we need to hear the arguments properly and in detail, and we need an oppourtunity to take them apart. This is my John Stuart Mill side talking again. Personally, I think the arguments cannot possibly stand in light of core British values as I understand them but that's obviously arguable.

That said, I think there's very valid concerns about immigration, religious co-existence, the European project, and so on which need to be addressed, and soon. I could almost envisage a long-term, cross-party commission with various referenda along the way because it's so important to our future.

@ Dan (20:06)—Option B [A Muslim Britain with nothing for gay men to chuckle about] is probably not going to happen in the foreseeable future.

Internet chatter has increasingly discussed that such increases in homophobic hate crime is [sic] the result of the failure of multi-cultural policies to address the widening gulf between the views of new citizens from countries where homosexuality is seen as morally wrong and those UK citizens who don’t. Comments posted invariably state that most perpetrators of homophobia have been either of black or Asian origin. Many cite the growth of Islam and religious fundamentalism as being a catalyst for such problems.

I think that were Islam to become a dominant religion in the UK, it would be the Islam of the young - not of the antediluvian mullahs - the Islam of the courageous and devout, compassionate and articulate young Muslims in Egypt.

The other thing is that there are gay Muslims. The famous Salam Pax Iraqi blogger is gay.

If the C of E withers, it will be because its ministry is no longer inspired by the Gospels and by the humble example of Christ.

● 95% of Egyptians say it’s good that Islam plays a large role in politics● 20% of Egyptians think suicide bombings are sometimes or often justified● 82% of Egyptians believe adulterers should be stoned● 84% of Egyptians believe apostates from Islam should face the death penalty● 77% of Egyptians believe thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off

"The British teenager of tomorrow is named Mohammed, and he takes his inspiration not from the Magna Carta, but the Qur’an. His hero is not Winston Churchill or Oliver Cromwell, but that bloody butcher of men and raper of women and little girls, the Islamic prophet Mohammed. When he plays video games, he imagines that the men he's killing are the soldiers returning home from fighting against teenagers just like him in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sooner or later, he dreams of being able to do the same thing. He thinks of British girls as whores, of English culture as corrupt and worthless, and feels he owes no obedience to its laws or its government. The word 'Islamophobia' makes him chuckle. He likes the idea that the natives are afraid of him. 'They should be,' he thinks. They should be indeed."http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/01/anglophobia-or-islamophobia-whats-real.html

There is NO link between the EDL and the British National Party. But of course, we would not want that FACT to get in the way, would we?

Judging by the controlled media’s promotion of EDL it is becoming obvious to anyone still left with the ability to think for themselves that there is a ‘guiding hand’ at work here. This organisation sprang up from nowhere. Every one of its demonstrations is carefully choreographed with a UAF ‘counter demonstration’ and publicised days in advance by the helpful media to encourage the maximum number of hooligans from both sides to attend so as to add as much fuel to the fire as possible.

Now an MP and the media deliberately mislead people into believing that the EDL and the British National Party are one and the same. All a pack of LIES of course. Why would that be do you suppose? Surely nothing to do with the forthcoming parliamentary bi-election in Barnsley in which the British National Party is standing a candidate and/or the proportional elections in May where they might just succeed in getting their first Welsh Assembly Member elected. That is unless the patriotic vote – I mean the ‘far right’ vote – can be deflected into the hands of Plaid or UKIP by lighting the Islamic powder keg and making sure that voters believe that the British National Party was behind the ‘fascist’ violence.

We don’t care either. We don’t care about England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland. We don’t care about Christianity. We don’t care about ‘democracy’ and freedom of speech.

Got what it takes? Got muscles? Are you ‘liberal’ or full on Marxist? Join us and our Moslem brothers and sisters on the streets to silence the English misfits, Christian misfits, Jewish misfits, right wing misfits and all the unbelievers.

We are endorsed by ‘cast iron’ Dave, leader of the New Liberal Party. We need you and others like you who “don’t care.” Join UAF today.

That poll doesn't given any information about the sample, other than the total number and that it was "face to face", so it's a pretty well useless report. Pew is a respectable organisation but I'd want to see the questions and more information about the sample.

In most countries in the Middle East, including Egypt, you have people with the educational opportunities and living standards of Westerners living not far from enormous numbers of people whose way of life has not changed in 2,000 years living in poverty and deprivation. Who do you suppose Pew interviewed?

In what way are the views of some Egyptians in the survey reported by Johnny Rottenborough worse than the actions of the "Christian" G W Bush administration in Iraq? Shooting civilians on sight, bombing restaurants, deploying banned DU weapons over residential areas, incarcerating people (including children) without access to legal representation or the Red Crescent for months and years, Guantanamo Bay (where one detainee aged 48 has just died, after 8 years of detention without being charged)? The sickening war crimes perpetrated and boasted of - eg on the undermars web site - by US soldiers in Iraq?

A bit less "wilful blindness" about recent "Christian" atrocities would do a lot to help bring about peace in the Middle East.

'Your Grace believes that multiculturalism is Marxist. It is rather a creation of pragmatic politicians in the light of the disinclination of most voters of all backgrounds to engage their neighbours in conflict.'

Oh dear you actually believe that? If it was pragmatic then their understanding of the most basic tribal human instinct was zero. Multiculturalism is a planned concept which RESULTED IN the conflicts.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)